Captain, We Hit Another Submarine: British and French Nuclear Missiles Subs

We support our Publishers and Content Creators. You can view this story on their website by CLICKING HERE.

Key Points: In February 2009, two NATO submarines, the UK’s HMS Vanguard and France’s Le Triomphant, collided in the Eastern Atlantic, putting nuclear weapons and reactors at risk.

-The incident, which caused significant damage but no casualties, exposed flaws in tactics, sonar systems, and NATO protocols.

-Both submarines carried substantial nuclear arsenals, heightening the potential consequences.

-A whistleblower revealed the extent of the damage and the risks involved, highlighting the need for improved coordination and transparency among NATO allies.

-While operational secrecy is critical, NATO should revisit its rules to prevent future incidents that might not end as safely.

Disaster In the Making When Two Nuclear Submarines Collide

You can’t mention NATO these days without bringing up some controversy – whether it’s President-elect Donald Trump potentially pulling the United States out of the alliance or the reality of many NATO members not spending enough on defense. 

But what if I told you that one time, two NATO allies went to “war” with each other under the sea?

I am talking about a naval mishap in February 2009 when a British and French submarine collided, placing their nuclear weapons and nuclear power plants in jeopardy.

This Could Have Been Disastrous

This undoubtedly caused the sailors on board to have fits. Personnel on both subs probably suspected that they had sustained damage in combat. 

Any collision in a submarine could end up in a fatal sinking, and so the sailors feared the worst. 

Fortunately, there were no casualties after the crash, and personnel on both subs lived to tell about it. 

There was no damage to the nuclear weapons or the nuclear reactors on board.  

Take a Deeper Dive into the Incident

However, this called into question the tactics, techniques, and procedures both navies executed during the mishap. 

For example, what was going on with the sonar system? Was there a catastrophic sonar failure on either vessel? 

This could have been a lot worse, and an after-action review would have shown that the command team of each sub needed to optimize the on-board decision-making calculus and analyze what went wrong and how to fix it.

What Happened? 

The UK’s HMS Vanguard and France’s Le Triomphant patrolled deep in the Eastern Atlantic Ocean at night.

 The Vanguard somehow crashed into the Le Triomphant. It was a harrowing sequence of events in which both boats tried to assess casualties and damages quickly while fearing the worst.

More Facts Come to Light

The HMS Vanguard limped back to base and the damages were anything but minor. 

There were obvious problems on the starboard side of the sub, and the missile compartment looked terrible. A whistleblower claimed that extensive repairs were needed.

“The French submarine had taken a massive chunk out of the front of HMS Vanguard and grazed down the side of the boat. The High-Pressured Air [HPA] bottle groups were hanging off and banging against the pressure hull. They had to return to base port slowly, because if one of HPA bottle groups exploded it would’ve created a chain reaction and sent the submarine plummeting to the bottom,” the whistleblower said. 

The whistleblower was worried that the Royal Navy was trying to hide the details of the damages from the public since the nuclear weapons and reactor could have been in danger. 

NATO does not have strict stipulations on how countries should inform each other of the whereabouts of their submarines.

‘ The alliance calls for members to divulge the location data of their ships generally, but it does not require that nuclear-attack submarines share their specific whereabouts. 

This is for operational security and to ensure that location information is top secret to prevent it from being leaked to the media and allowing submarines to be discovered.

Both of these boats were armed to the gills with doomsday weapons. The Le Triomphant had at least sixteen M45 nuclear ballistic missiles. The Vanguard could launch sixteen Trident II nuclear ballistic missiles as well.

NATO SSBN Sub Crash: What Are the Ramifications?

This raises the question of how secretive navies should be about the locations of their nuclear submarines. On one hand, sharing this data with an ally should be something to consider. It would remove the risk of accidents or mistakes that could lead to disaster. 

However, even allies sometimes spy on each other, and this would necessitate the utmost operational security to prevent prying eyes from discovering where a country’s submarines prefer to patrol.

It was a good development that a whistleblower was able to shine a light on this collision. The public has a right to know that such an event could have ended in catastrophe. 

The media’s coverage also placed more pressure on both navies to conduct an investigation that would inform higher command (and NATO) about the strategic, operational, and tactical ramifications of collisions at sea. 

This prevented both countries from sweeping this under the rug without seriously analyzing how and why it happened.

I’m surprised that NATO did not make a bigger deal about this collision. While there were no casualties or damages to the nuclear missiles and power plants, the incident still sticks in my craw. 

The essence of nuclear strategy is that secrets must be kept. But it wouldn’t be bad if NATO adjusted some of its rules and regulations to require that navies disclose where their nuclear submarines are operating if it is in the Atlantic Ocean. NATO governs the Atlantic, and while secrecy is essential, the next time there is a submarine collision, it may not end so well.

About the Author: Dr. Brent M. Eastwood

Brent M. Eastwood, PhD, is the author of Don’t Turn Your Back On the World: a Conservative Foreign Policy and Humans, Machines, and Data: Future Trends in Warfare, plus two other books. Brent was the founder and CEO of a tech firm that predicted world events using artificial intelligence. He served as a legislative fellow for U.S. Senator Tim Scott and advised the senator on defense and foreign policy issues. He has taught at American University, George Washington University, and George Mason University. Brent is a former U.S. Army Infantry officer. He can be followed on X @BMEastwood.